Game 8

Yes, but at least for game 9 the deadline between turns is still 36 days. Deadline was 10th October, new turn sent out 31st October. That is 3 week. And then 15 days until next deadline, so turnaround time remain the same but only 2 weeks from turn received until deadline. Must be a problem for postal players.

I am still a postal player. I work nights, so I can do a turn in two or three days. I prefer quick turnaround times.

Agema players are generally getting older in years. So usually have more free time than younger parent players. Older players are often more impatient and thoughtful of how long certain game actions are taking. So I think most prefer quicker turns.

total position income up a lot, off what I think is fairly sizable base.

Tax revenue up a fair bit more than trade seeming to suggest the idea we've bandied about that EH is more tied to tax revenue and domestic events, while trade is more international and less driven by your EH.

I think I'd be a bit cranky too if the russians moved into my house, announced they'd bought it from the swedes, and then got outraged at me.

Frankly, I'm surprised that this hasn't caused more public issues between Russia and the Swedes. Looks to me like the Swedes sold something they didn't own to the Russians...

I think it's natural in the game for players to focus on other players, but it seems to be that Ingria has been mistreated. The Russian player made a mistake in riding into a place he 'bought' without military backup. He has then doubled down by doing a lot of yelling at the people who are holding the 'home invader'.

I do think Richard is prone to have very contrary NPCs that don't cooperate on much of anything, but in this case, I think the NPC's behavior is mostly warranted.

Deacon wrote:I do think Richard is prone to have very contrary NPCs that don't cooperate on much of anything, but in this case, I think the NPC's behavior is mostly warranted.

I'm inclined to agree, and especially about the Swedes being more liable than they are being held to account for - that's as the "history" of our game unfolds. Underneath of course are the mechanisms of the game, where the Swedish failing was caused (I'm thinking) by a change of players with a hiatus in between (rather then any actual duplicity on the part of a Swedish player). The Russian player was also a little over-sanguine, sending in the Tzar without an escort! However caused, it does seem that the Russian army is now going to have to march - and the British navy may have a chance to show its stuff...

To the best of my knowledge Ingria is part of the Swedish Empire, and a claim of independence does not make it so. My argument being if a personality in Hungary declared independence from Austria do all other game players have to accept that as fact ?

At the point of sale, Sweden was the sovereign ruler of Ingria. That sovereign right was sold to Russia, making Russia the legal owner. Ingria can object and complain but their actions are rebellion against the sovereign ruler....in my opinion.

They could sell that claim, but that's not the same as actually selling the land, because if you don't really have the land and its people in your possession and control, it isn't really 'yours'.

I play a vast colonial power. I own a lot that that isn't 'mine'. I just happen to know that I need to back up those claims with force of arms.

It may be that it was to the Tsar's benefit to buy the claim to avoid conflict with the Swedes, but you pay a lot less for a claim than you do for real property. You know you'll have to go enforce that claim.

Early in Game 8, I sold a claim to some property in Africa to another player. But I was clear I was selling a claim. I didn't have control/possession of the land.

In either case, I think the Ingrian response is the result of Russia's interactions with them on the issue. It is emotionally satisfying to yell at people like this, but it does tend to annoy them a lot! And surprisingly, annoyed people don't volunteer to give up their own identity to be ruled by strangers.

(One of) the curious things about the Ingrian situation is the non-active involvement of the Swedes. Is that nation npc again, does anybody know? You'd think a player would be getting stuck in, clearing their own honour and getting in a few military practices, or at least making some forceful comment on the rights and wrongs of what's been said and what's happening...

Meanwhile, else-wise in Game 8, my Economic improvements for the year have duly delivered - but also resulted in a halving of the newly available recruits. I still have plenty, of course, but it the starkest indication of the link between the two that I've yet seen.

The Real Louis wrote:(One of) the curious things about the Ingrian situation is the non-active involvement of the Swedes. Is that nation npc again, does anybody know? You'd think a player would be getting stuck in, clearing their own honour and getting in a few military practices, or at least making some forceful comment on the rights and wrongs of what's been said and what's happening...

Meanwhile, else-wise in Game 8, my Economic improvements for the year have duly delivered - but also resulted in a halving of the newly available recruits. I still have plenty, of course, but it the starkest indication of the link between the two that I've yet seen.

That is why I tend to not improve my EH too much. I find income is easier to obtain than needed in later years. Recruits are always needed and you can never have enough of them. If your nation is attacked. It is the size of your recruits/forces that are important, rather than money. Which in later years, barring a disaster should be plentiful. Just my view.

The Real Louis wrote:(One of) the curious things about the Ingrian situation is the non-active involvement of the Swedes. Is that nation npc again, does anybody know? You'd think a player would be getting stuck in, clearing their own honour and getting in a few military practices, or at least making some forceful comment on the rights and wrongs of what's been said and what's happening...

Meanwhile, else-wise in Game 8, my Economic improvements for the year have duly delivered - but also resulted in a halving of the newly available recruits. I still have plenty, of course, but it the starkest indication of the link between the two that I've yet seen.

That is why I tend to not improve my EH too much. I find income is easier to obtain than needed in later years. Recruits are always needed and you can never have enough of them. If your nation is attacked. It is the size of your recruits/forces that are important, rather than money. Which in later years, barring a disaster should be plentiful. Just my view.

Which is a very interesting one... (long pause for contemplation of the future. What actions can you take to reduce EH? Not a question I've seen asked before!)

In answer. Not so much having to do anything to prevent EH rising so high. More a question of not taking certain actions that usually greatly help raise EH. Also I would add. The more recruits you pump into the military. The less you have to pump into civil matters and the less EH rises.

If you're rich and have money to waste, try opening orphanages and marine societies. Each produces 50 recruits a year. Ok, it does require an order for them to do so (doesn't happen automatically) and it is an expensive way to get recruits but if you don't want to damage the economy nor mess around with slaves or sending out foreign recruiting parties, it is an option.

Turn is out, and it is interesting. Things are heating up in the East. Wasn't going to spoil the news but Ardagor has beat me to the posting punch. I guess all the threats to the Ingrians finally got the result you would expect.

Personally find it interesting what things other nations decide are in their national interest and choose to get involved/committed to. England's big commitment to region seems odd to me, including a declaration of war when there is no stated treaty obligations or the like. And given how England has historically treated their monarchs, their claims of protecting 'divine right' ring a bit hollow to me.

But no doubt they think they get something out of fighting a war in the frozen east!

I'm personally more interested in the Saxony question that France raises. Under the treaty of Westphalia, a nation's ruler must match his people's faith. Saxony has converted to catholicism to ascend the throne of Poland. So does that count as an abdication of the Saxon throne, since he is no longer lutheran like his people?

It is indeed an interesting turn of events. The United Kingdom is engaged in supporting a friend and protecting the honour of Sweden who old the property in good faith. The UK and Sweden's Queens are personal friends and as such the involvement in the area is deemed worthy. Likewise, UK trade is expanding and Russia is one of the areas that we hope to expand to.

The incident in Westphalia is indeed interesting. However, I would urge the gentle reader of the Times and of this blog to stand by for a massive news flash in the coming months.

I had thought they were back in play with some of the rumblings I have heard of late.

Indeed it is Russian, but the transaction that made it so was between Sweden and Russia according to the new Tsar. With Queen Henrietta no longer present the decision was made to back the position that the transaction had been conducted under honourable terms. At no point has either Sweden or Russia shown us anything but the fact that they speak the truth. We shall see how interesting this might well be in the future.